Let’s Talk About Syria

It’s the topic many of us don’t want to think about, although we know it’s important: the possibility for U.S. military involvement in the war in Syria. Don’t know what’s going on? It’s confusing, convoluted, and depressing. First of all, read this article in The Washington Post: 9 Questions About Syria You Were Too Embarassed to Ask:

BlogHer Holli Long writes about the shock she felt when turning on a newscast showing images from Syria:

However, in less than 30 seconds, my heart was shattered in a million pieces as a CNN news anchor prepped a video clip in which a Syrian mother would be shown holding her dead children.
My honest response? I screamed at the television. I clicked it off as fast as I could. I did not sign up for this.

Some bloggers say that with the allegations of chemical warfare and deaths of innocent civilians, it’s about time the United States does something to stop the atrocities. Here’s what they’re saying about President Obama's decision to seek Congressional approval for military action, over at Momocrats:

We were relieved at his announcement that he would seek Congressional approval for the military strike he is considering to deter the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons against its own people. This is the course we hoped he would take when discussing this on last week’s MOMochat podcast, and in the absence of UN authorization (which he is unlikely to get), we feel that this kind of unilateral action without a legal framework would be disastrous – especially in this situation, where it does not appear a missile strike would do anything to stop the violence in Syria, and may even make things worse.

Bridget at Short Woman thinks the U.S. just can’t afford to intervene:

In an environment where we are arguing about the upcoming debt ceiling problem and some Republicans are threatening to let the nation default on it’s bonds unless Social Security is gutted, it’s worth noting that the Pentagon can’t afford to go to war in Syria and will need a supplemental spending bill to make it happen. But Republicans never met a war they didn’t like (unless a Democrat thinks it’s a good idea); so much for “this nation must learn to live within it’s means.

But for many women, there's no clear cut answer. Rita Arens at Surrender Dorothy says:

When it comes to policing the world, I'm ambivalent. Of course I'd love for a strong country like America to be able to help the world's wronged, but what if there are too many wrongs in the world for one military that's already so spread out? What if we have children who are hurting here? Is it our responsibility to attack if we were not attacked? Is this really about our fear they will use those weapons on us and not really about the children at all? And if so, is that a game-changer?

I also think it’s naïve of the US to believe we could swoop in, hit a few targets to let President Bashar al-Assad know not to use chemical weapons again, and go back to America. The Syrian regime has many allies, especially Russia, whose government is powerful today and not friendly with America. I worry that we, the US and Russia, will use Syria to work out our difference like we did in many countries during the Cold War.

Others feel the whole situation in Syria is beyond our control. Over at The Common Room, Headmistress, zookeeper writes Syria is Not Our War:

Syria … bad things are happening there, sad things and heartbreaking things. We should be praying, fasting, praying more. But it’s not our war. That hasn’t stopped us before, of course, we have a long history of meddling and playing the world’s police officers.